[cjonas]

On lichess? I been hovering in at 1300+-50 for the last year... I can barely beat stockfish 2. I've found stockfish at these lower levels doesn't play like humans at all. It will play a near perfect game for 25 moves and then all of a sudden make a horrible and senseless move. If your style is slow and defensive I think you probably fair better. My style is hyper aggressive and stockfish crushes me :)

[incomingpain]

>On lichess? I been hovering in at 1300+-50 for the last year... I can barely beat stockfish 2.

Yes.

Stockfish 2 is pretty easy, play solid and it eventually does something ridiculous to earn its lower rating. The trick, you have to see the mistake. Basically punches itself in the face, you have to survive until it does this. Make sure everything is defended.

Stockfish 3 is when it starts playing reasonably and only makes a mistake when you've put enough pressure on it.

Stockfish 4 you have to play against it. You need to see depth of about 3-4 moves for both of you and you should beat it every time.

Stockfish 5 is hard, it's seemingly giving you tricks, but if you look at the trick its a crazy computer line where they manage to barely hold on or in most cases you shouldn't have taken what it was giving.

>I've found stockfish at these lower levels doesn't play like humans at all. It will play a near perfect game for 25 moves and then all of a sudden make a horrible and senseless move. If your style is slow and defensive I think you probably fair better. My style is hyper aggressive and stockfish crushes me :)

From my experience stockfish never plays like a human. I do recall there are some bots on lichess which were machine learning to play like a human.

Alas I'm 1100 rated according to op.

[myaccount9786]

Just want to point out the obvious: if you are staying at 1300 for over 1y, you are not improving and likely not understanding why you are losing. I would recommend you study rather than banging your head against the wall by playing more games.

Opening theory and tactics are a good place to start.

An easy step is make sure you know a few common openings and have at least one response prepared to each. But also a good understanding of principles. Opening principles are more important, you can wing it if you don't know the theory. There are thousands of videos on YouTube about these topics.

And obviously just don't hang pieces and take your opponent's hung pieces. At 1300 on lichess, your opponent will make a bunch of tactical mistakes which you can just take if you see them, after you can just win if you play solidly for the rest of the game. The way to study here is with puzzles.

Sorry to patronize. I have played thousands of 1300's on lichess and improved after I sat down and studied. But I can tell you, if you're actually 1300 you are not strong enough in some of these areas.

P.S. I don't believe the comment above yours. The dude went from 2200 to 1300??

[cjonas]

I think your just trying to be helpful, but ya it did come off as pretty patronizing. You've also assumed incorrectly that "getting better" is the most important thing when playing chess...

I play chess because I find it fun, relaxing and a great way to blow off stress. Studying opening and caring too much about rating ruins that. Rated play is awesome because I always get paired with someone of similar skill. I do feel I'm improving slowly, even if my rating does change much. I like to mix things up and often play strategies I know are bad because it leads to fun and novel positions.

And yes, I understand that I'm not a "strong" player. It's pretty obvious when lichess tells me directly I'm in the bottom ~30% lol.

[myaccount9786]

Why complain about not getting better than 1300 then? My point is there are a lot of different levers to pull to get better and imo it's interesting to learn more tactics.

The game does become more interesting as you get better. At least up to 1850 in my personal experience. At <=1400 level the game is more like gambling imo, hoping opponent will fall into trap or miss a move.

[cjonas]

Nothing in my post was complaining about not getting better. You must have misinterpreted what I said.

It seems like as you increase in rating, chess would become more about who can memorize the most lines or how well you have studied the opening theory. That personally sounds miserable to me.

I actually enjoy the fact that lower rated matches allow many fun lines that are "objectively bad" to be completely viable. Of course, I hope my game will continue to improve, but I'm careful not to take it too seriously.

There's a saying in skiing that I like to apply to all my hobbies:

The best skier on the mountain is the one who's having the most fun :)

[myaccount9786]

Ok, maybe opening theory is less fun.

But tactics are very fun. They're not about memorization, but about calculation and pattern recognition. If you get good enough, you get to sacrifice all kinds of material if you calculate. Bxg6. Raaaar!

[incomingpain]

>P.S. I don't believe the comment above yours. The dude went from 2200 to 1300??

Like I could provide links to my games. I'm not a liar. I estimate I am a 1800-2000 player.

The thing I don't seem to know, it would seem to me when I play against a 1300 who never makes a blunder or mistake. It then happens 20 games straight. They certainly play various inaccuracies, and I hold myself as well as I do compared to stockfish 5.

In 1 game I was up 2 pieces and the computer didnt think they made a mistake nor blunder. >90% accuracy as a 1300...

I guess, I'm missing some fundamental thing.

[myaccount9786]

I don't believe anyone could be 2200 and fall to 1300 because I am 1800 and I crush 1300s 99% of the time. And 2200s will crush me 99% of the time. How that decline happens?

So you're saying that you could crush me but are getting beat by 1300s who anyone at 1800 could crush easily? F to doubt.

Edit: for example https://www.318chess.com/elo.html. there is a statistical analysis of lichess data as well but it went down a few years ago.